dimreepr

I have to wonder, is he trying to throw the fight? Has some shady characters got to him? Or maybe his past has caught up, though I struggle to imagine anything that could be more embarrassing than these recent gaffs.

In a word, yes. I have been told there is difficulty inkeeping bacteriophages alive long enough to get them to the patient here in the west.

What are the problems associated with bringing bacterial phage's to market? Is it just a case of keeping them alive long enough? Or are there any issues of possible mutations into something less desirable? I hear through the grapevine that the Russians are running trials, though I have no idea of the validity of this.

They should install ejector seat just for Romney and giveRyan the controls.

What is your evidence to support this assertion? I'm sorry but this definition would come under the term biphasic not polyphasic and, it seems to me, a result of environmental circumstance rather than a natural pattern.

I suspect polyphasic sleep is effective on a short to medium term basis, however, the tendency in humans to monophasic or biphasic sleep patterns suggests, to me at least, that on a long term basis problems related to sleep deprivation would emerge making it problematic as a long term solution. Or maybe it's a question of genetics and we should follow our natural rhythms . Why do you want to practice this method of sleep, do you not have enough hours in the day? http://epub.uni-regensburg.de/19879/

My post was intended as a rebuttal of dmaiski's post #15 and continued assertion, bigger is automatically better. In some circumstances bigger is the evolved method of defence but this is by no means the only method of defence in the predator/prey arms race: Speed agility vigilance foul tasting poison armour spikes, the list goes on. Also with large size comes inherent vulnerability in extreme situations such as drought and food shortages, for instance how many large animals survived the PT extinction event? As for the link you've provided I think Ringer's explanation pretty much covers it, far more eloquently than could I.

My post was intended as a rebuttal of dmaiski’s post #15 andcontinued assertion, bigger is automatically better. In some circumstancesbigger is the evolved method of defence but this is by no means the only methodof defence in the predator/prey arms race: Speed agility vigilance foul tastingpoison armour spikes, the list goes on. Also with large size comes inherentvulnerability in extreme situations such as drought and food shortages, forinstance how many large animals survived the PT extinction event? As for the link you’ve provided I think Ringer’s explanationpretty much covers it, far more eloquently than could I.

No I have discovered this previously, so I always scroll upand hit 'today's posts'. I am quite convinced the mouse is at fault and is just a coincidence that I have got yet another faulty mouse or perhaps the OS may be the problem, I will re-install and get back to you.

Is double posting some sort of disease? If so, I'm infected...

Size, in the way you suggest, is primarily a result of predation.The elephant is the size it is as a result of the prey/predator arms race. It has no relation to environmental fitness. When you have dug yourself into a hole the general rule of thumb is, stop digging.

hmmm double posted again maybe it's not a faulty mouse

Sounds like a well insulated diving suit with, not only oxygen but heat, supplied through the umbilical would suffice. It would just depend on how far the explorer intends/needs to go.

It has been suggested that gravity is so weak (compared tothe other forces) because it bleeds into a 5th dimension.I really don’t think gravity itself is a dimension. http://www.scribd.com/doc/18474193/The-Elegant-Universe-Notes http://www.cheniere.org/books/aids/ch4.htm

Not at all, think about bacteria and viruses. Larger isn't better, more effective is better and that doesn't depend on size or intelligence and tougher is relative.

However credible and undeniably factual science becomes, there will always be people who deny the obvious in favour of what could be. Science will always have gaps, however small, into which doubt can be inserted. God will always be the fantasy of doubt in some people as a way to deal with stuff they don't want to face with reality.

It isn't about data and processing power, Heisenberg see's to that, predicting the future is just a dream, however deterministic our universe is or maybe. Larger organisms isn't what's inevitable, better fitting, as in environment, is all that's inevitable hence the word "evolution".

They talk of making the ring of exotic matter, so it would be powered by magic.

They talk of making the ring of exotic matter, so it wouldbe powered by magic.

It’s caused by being in the right place at the right time i.e. having the sun at 42 degrees above and behind you.

So, that’s where Sasquatch went, he’s an elusive bugger.

You’re thinking of water, without which one would die very quickly, food however, one can live without for quite some time. Phi and Appolinaria are right, in our modern world we need money to at least achieve the lowest order of Maslow’s hierarchy, we need farming to feed the world, and modern farming wouldn’t be possible without money.

I don’t advocate a revolution but I do see the potential for one. It’s never good to be in the middle of a revolution, as the mythical Chinese curse, “may you live in interesting times”, suggests such times are to be avoided if at all possible.

I do agree with your premise, if we lived in an ideal world, however, with money you not only have access to homes, cars, luxuries etc... You also have access, and influence, to politicians. As we all know the political system we have is very short term in its thinking and very much doesn’t want to rock the boat, this means they are likely to make headline statements like “lets tax the rich” and speciously implement such a tax on the rich, knowing full well that without plugging the loopholes that exist in the system, nothing will change and the rich will continue to pay practically nothing in tax. What we actually have now is a law that attacks the fundamental needs of the poorest in our society but does nothing to enable them to, as you say, “Honestly acquire a home”. I would be happy to see this law implemented if there were measures such as you suggest. The gov’t run the risk of swelling the numbers of the disenfranchised to the point, that with nothing to lose, they will turn on the rest of society.

Of course, who wouldn’t want that?